No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2021
This article explores early modern practices of cooking and hospitality, both in and out of homes, in the Jewish ghetto of Frankfurt am Main. The focus is on Garküchen (eateries) and communal ovens, which were increasingly regulated by the community. Communal leaders employed creative strategies to find solutions for nourishing a growing local and visiting population in the limited space of the early modern Jewish ghetto. Their attempts to expand were propelled by concrete historical events, particularly by a series of fires, which shaped the physical spaces in which this process unfolded. Looking at these institutions allows for a reconsideration of the spatial boundaries of the Jewish ghetto.
We would like to thank the Israel Institute of Advanced Studies, the Israel Science Foundation Grant 1802/18, and the Marie Curie Actions, EC FP7, in the frame of the EURIAS Fellowship Program, for supporting our work.
1. Institut für Stadtgeschichte Frankfurt am Main (ISG), Criminalia 609 (1624), fols. 1r–3v.
2. On Gütge, see Shlomo Ettlinger, Ele toldot [Burial Records of the Jewish Community of Frankfurt am Main] 1241–1824, n.d., http://www.lbi.org/digibaeck/results/?qtype=pid&term=258967, 15.XII.1637. Based on a tax register that is no longer extant, Ettlinger dates Gütge's Garküche to at least 1598.
3. The Lent Fair (Fastenmesse) in Frankfurt lasted for about three weeks total, from Oculi Sunday until the Friday before Palm Sunday, with some flexibility regarding its end. See Rothmann, Michael, Die Frankfurter Messen im Mittelalter (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1998), 102–7Google Scholar. Brübach, Nils, Die Reichsmessen von Frankfurt am Main, Leipzig und Braunschweig: 14.–18. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1994), 142–45Google Scholar. Dietz describes a temporary shift of the fair in the seventeenth century from Judica Sunday to Easter Tuesday. See Dietz, Alexander, Frankfurter Handelsgeschichte (Frankfurt: Minjon, 1910), 1:38, 39Google Scholar. In 1624, which would later become the Normaljahr (regulatory year) in the Holy Roman Empire, it seems Easter fell on the same days in both the Julian and the Gregorian calendars on April 7. See Fischer, A., “Der hohenlohe'sche Osterstreit,” Theologische Jahrbücher 14 (1855): 551Google Scholar.
4. ISG FfM, Criminalia 609, fol. 2r.
5. There are no studies on smaller eateries in Frankfurt or the Holy Roman Empire in particular, but Garküchen are mentioned in general overviews and travelers’ descriptions of medieval and early modern urban gastronomic landscapes. Ehlert, Trude, ed., Haushalt und Familie in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1991), 11Google Scholar. Herbert May, ed., Gasthäuser: Geschichte und Kultur (Petersberg: Imhof, 2004). Andreas Weigl, “Zwischen Kaffeehaus und ‘Beisl.’ Zur Institutionalisierung der Wiener Gastronomie seit dem späten 18. Jahrhundert,” in Die Revolution am Esstisch: Neue Studien zur Nahrungskultur im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, ed. Hans Jürgen Teuteberg (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2004), 176. Two early modern Jewish Garküchen in Vienna are mentioned as mandatory places for Jewish travelers to consume food. See Wolf, Gerson, Geschichte der Juden in Wien (1156–1876) (Wien: Hölder, 1876), 73, 83Google Scholar.
6. On the social and spatial dimension of early modern taverns see Rau, Susanne, “Orte der Gastlichkeit—Orte der Kommunikation. Aspekte der Raumkonstitution von Herbergen in einer frühneuzeitlichen Stadt,” Zeitsprünge. Forschungen zur Frühen Neuzeit 9, no. 3/4 (2005): 394–417Google Scholar. Rau, “Die Vielfalt des Räumlichen,” Frühneuzeit-Info 28 (2018): 75–86. For a European comparative perspective see Kümin, Beat A. and Tlusty, Ann, eds., The World of the Tavern: Public Houses in Early Modern Europe (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002)Google Scholar.
7. Scholars have discussed only Polish Jewish taverns owned by leaseholders; see, for example, Dynner, Glenn, Yankel's Tavern: Jews, Liquor, and Life in the Kingdom of Poland (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015)Google Scholar.
8. The spatial turn in history has received much attention, and the vast literature cannot be cited here. For an overview, see Jo Guldi, “What Is the Spatial Turn?,” http://spatial.scholarslab.org/spatial-turn/what-is-the-spatial-turn. On different meanings of space, and how they can be applied to early modern history, see Stock, Paul, ed., The Uses of Space in Early Modern History (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For early modern Germany in particular, see Rau, Susanne and Schwerhoff, Gerd, “Öffentliche Räume in der Frühen Neuzeit: Überlegungen zu Leitbegriffen und Themen eines Forschungsfeldes,” in Zwischen Gotteshaus und Taverne (Köln: Böhlau, 2004), 11–52Google Scholar. For historical studies focusing on the physical layout of cities and spaces, see, for example, Terpstra, Nicholas and Rose, Colin, eds., Mapping Space, Sense, and Movement in Florence: Historical GIS and the Early Modern City (London: Routledge, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the symbolic aspects of space, see Smail, Daniel Lord, Imaginary Cartographies: Possession and Identity in Late Medieval Marseille (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000)Google Scholar. The overlap between physical spaces and their symbolic representation is highlighted in Perry, Micha J., “Imaginary Space Meets Actual Space in Thirteenth-Century Cologne: Eliezer Ben Joel and the Eruv,” Images 5, no. 1 (2011): 26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9. The Judengasse may have been expanded to between four and six meters wide in 1714. For a discussion of the negotiations conducted in the early eighteenth century over expanding the width of the ghetto, see “Die Geschichte der Frankfurter Judengasse,” Israelitische Monatsschrift. Wissenschaftliche Beilage zur “Jüdischen Presse” 5, no. 18 (1906): 17.
10. Litt, Stefan and Blum, Rahel, “The Situation of Frankfurt's Jewish Community around 1700 (1675–1711),” Frankfurter judaistische Beiträge 40 (2015): 223–37Google Scholar.
11. Taverns, for which we do not have sufficient documentation and therefore are beyond the scope of this article, would also fall into this category. See Ele toldot on Wirtshaus. There are also several takkanot (communal ordinances) from 1674 which attempted to limit gambling. See, for example, Stefan Litt, Jüdische Gemeindestatuten aus dem aschkenasischen Kulturraum, 1650–1850 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 67, no. 48.
12. Neuerlingen, Joseph Hahn, Sefer yosif ʾomeẓ (Frankfurt: Johann Kellner, 1723), nos. 581–82; 795Google Scholar.
13. In a criminal court case during the 1780s, similar descriptions of stairwell kitchens and cooking facilities are recorded. See, for example, Austrian State Archive (OeStA), HHStA, RHR, Decisa 9303, fols. 68v–69v, interrogation protocol of Benedict Aaron May, August 29, 1781. For the context of the case see Fram, Edward and Kasper-Marienberg, Verena, “Jewish Martyrdom without Persecution: The Murder of Gumpert May, Frankfurt am Main, 1781,” AJS Review 39, no. 2 (2015): 272CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14. Hahn Neuerlingen, Yosif ʾomeẓ, no. 795.
15. See, for example, some of the disputes over living spaces that appeared before the Frankfurt rabbinical court. Fram, Edward, A Window on Their World: The Court Diary of Rabbi Ḥayyim Gundersheim, Frankfurt am Main, 1773–1794 (Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16. Hahn Neuerlingen, Yosif ʾomeẓ, nos. 387–402.
17. Ibid., no. 826.
18. Kasper-Marienberg, Verena, “Vor Euer Kayserlichen Mayestät Justiz-Thron”: Die Frankfurter jüdische Gemeinde am Reichshofrat in josephinischer Zeit (1765–1790) (Innsbruck: Studienverlag, 2012), 384–87Google Scholar. Non-Jewish maidservants are also mentioned by Katz, Jacob, The “Shabbes Goy”: A Study in Halakhic Flexibility (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989)Google Scholar.
19. Hahn Neuerlingen, Yosif ʾomeẓ, nos. 632, 634.
20. Ibid., nos. 581–82.
21. Presumably, the oven would have been warm because a non-Jewish servant would have lit a fire to warm the house.
22. Hahn Neuerlingen, Yosif ʾomeẓ, nos. 582, 633.
23. Ibid., no. 710.
24. Battonn, Johann Georg, Oertliche Beschreibung der Stadt Frankfurt am Main, vol. 5 (Frankfurt a.M: Verein f. Geschichte u. Alterthumskunde, 1869), 317Google Scholar.
25. There has not yet been a study on Jewish presence at the Frankfurt fairs. For an overview of Jewish economic activities in Frankfurt, see Michael Toch, “Wirtschaft und Geldwesen der Juden Frankfurts im Spätmittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit,” in Jüdische Kultur in Frankfurt am Main von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart, ed. Karl Erich Grözinger (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997), 34, 35.
26. ISG FfM, Criminalia 609, fol. 1r.
27. On gender dynamics and space, see Flather, Amanda, “Space, Place, and Gender: The Sexual and Spatial Division of Labor in the Early Modern Household,” History and Theory 52 (2013): 344–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For additional examples of women who served food and/or coffee in their homes, see Berkovitz, Jay R., Protocols of Justice: The Pinkas of the Metz Rabbinic Court, 1771–1789 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), no. 42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Liberles, Robert, Jews Welcome Coffee: Tradition and Innovation in Early Modern Germany (Waltham, MA: University Press of New England, 2012), 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28. Ettlinger claims that there were Garküchen in the Judengasse in the early sixteenth century. One was apparently located in the house zur Eule. See Ele toldot, part B, Männerregister, Garküche.
29. National Library of Israel (NLI), JER 4° 662, no. 320 §79; Litt, Jüdische Gemeindestatuten, 492.
30. On vouchers, see Kaplan, Debra, The Patrons and Their Poor: Jewish Community and Public Charity in Early Modern Germany (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2020), 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
31. People generally preferred not to take oaths, as these constituted serious commitments. See Berkovitz, Protocols of Justice, 63–65. In the Sichel case discussed below, the communal leadership demonstrates the same reluctance to take oaths.
32. On the insufficiency of the public/private binary for eateries in early modern Germany, see Rau, Susanne, “Die Vielfalt des Räumlichen. Stand und Perspektiven der frühneuzeitlichen Raumforschung,” Frühneuzeit-Info 28 (2017): 75–85, especially 76–77Google Scholar.
33. For details on the 1711 fire and its repercussions in Jewish and Christian sources, see Dean Bell, “The Great Fire of 1711: Reconceptualizing the Jewish Ghetto and Jewish-Christian Relations in Early Modern Frankfurt am Main,” in Archaeologies of Confession: Writing the German Reformation, 1517–2017, ed. Carina L. Johnson et al. (New York: Berghahn, 2017), 193–218.
34. The Judenbaubuch, which contains architectural plans submitted to the magistrates, attests to this process. See ISG FfM, Juden Akten 49.
35. Schudt, Johann Jacob, Jüdische Merckwürdigkeiten (Frankfurt, 1714), 2:364Google Scholar.
36. Schudt, Jüdische Merckwürdigkeiten, 1:68, 69.
37. Ibid., 2:276–77. See also 2:362. Schudt is mistaken in his assumption that a Christian servant lighting a fire would have enabled cooking on Shabbat.
38. “Auff Das am 26ten Januar ergangene Decretum anbefohlene gehorsame Erklärungs-Deduction … Den Febr. 1714 bey Kaiserl. Commission übergeben.” OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa 2125, 1714, §25–27.
39. OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa 2125, ca. 1714, fol. 504–512, architectural drawings, Frankfurt magistrate and Frankfurt Jewish community for RHR. The building above the ovens is also mentioned in Schudt, Jüdische Merckwürdigkeiten, 2:362.
40. Kracauer, Isidor, Die Geschichte der Judengasse in Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt a.M.: Kauffmann, 1906), 332–34, 355–57Google Scholar.
41. For an introduction on the imperial court see Leopold Auer, “The Role of the Imperial Aulic Council in the Constitutional Structure of the Holy Roman Empire,” in The Holy Roman Empire, 1495–1806, ed. R. J. W. Evans, Michael Schaich, and Peter H. Wilson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 63–75. Eva Ortlieb, “The Holy Roman Empire: The Imperial Courts’ System and the Reichshofrat,” in European Supreme Courts, ed. Alain A. Wijffels and C. H. Van Rhee (London: Third Millennium Publishing, 2013), 86–95.
42. Kracauer, Geschichte der Judengasse, 359, 360. See the follow-up discussion among the RHR judges in OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Vota 27(J), 1714, fol. 5.
43. OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa 2125, ca. 1714, fol. 509r, architectural drawings Frankfurt magistrate and Frankfurt Jewish community for RHR. According to Schudt, some of the window gables had not been fully constructed. Schudt, Jüdischer Merckwürdigkeiten, 4:25.
44. Kracauer, Geschichte der Judengasse, 403.
45. ISG Juden Akten 17, 1703 visitation, house no. 131.
46. ISG Juden Akten 49, fol. 154.
47. Dietz assumes it was repurposed and mentions a family residing there from 1796 on. Alexander Dietz, Stammbuch der Frankfurter Juden. Geschichtliche Mitteilungen über die Frankfurter jüdischen Familien von 1349–1849, nebst einem Plane der Judengasse (Frankfurt: J. St. Goar, 1907), 445.
48. “Auff Das am 26ten Januar ergangene Decretum anbefohlene gehorsame Erklärungs-Deduction … Den Febr. 1714 bey Kaiserl. Commission übergeben.” OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa 1652.
49. OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Vota 27(J), F5.
50. OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa 2125, ca.1714, fol. 509r, architectural drawings, Frankfurt magistrate and Frankfurt Jewish community for RHR. See particularly the discussion of the imperial judges in OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Vota 27(J), F5.
51. ISG Juden Akten 49, fol. 153r.
52. On the different ways in which groups and individuals conceived of their “personal geographies,” see Smail, Imaginary Cartographies.
53. OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa 1652, 1718, fol. 154r, architectural drawing by Jewish community FfM for RHR.
54. It is not yet possible to determine the precise locations of these plots of land. It is reasonable to assume that they bordered the Judengasse or the Jewish cemetery. Battonn, Oertliche Beschreibung, 5:314–19. See the 1776 reference to Capitain Stein in Intelligenz-Blatt der freien Stadt Frankfurt, 1776, Extraordinairer Anhang, no. 85.
55. “Der Juden zu Franckfurt am Mayn, Stättigkeit und Ordnung [1616]” (Prague, 1617). An eighteenth-century reprint of the Frankfurt Judenstättigkeit can be found in Schudt, Jüdische Merckwürdigkeiten, 3:155–98.
56. Soliday, Gerald Lyman, A Community in Conflict: Frankfurt Society in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries (Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 1974), 196Google Scholar.
57. “Auff Das am 26ten Januar ergangene Decretum anbefohlene gehorsame Erklärungs-Deduction … Den Febr. 1714 bey Kaiserl. Commission übergeben,” OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa 2125, 1714, §30.
58. Ibid., §47.
59. Battonn, Johann G., Oertliche Beschreibung der Stadt Frankfurt am Main, vol. 3 (Frankfurt a.M.: Verein f. Geschichte u. Alterthumskunde, 1864), 314–15Google Scholar.
60. The Jewish community had a key as well but had to keep the gates closed at the municipality's order. Isidor Kracauer, Geschichte der Juden in Frankfurt am Main: (1150–1824) (Frankfurt a. M: Kauffmann, 1925), 1:205.
61. Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, “The Political Symbolism of the Eruv,” Jewish Social Studies 11, no. 3 (2005): 9–35; Perry, “Imaginary Space.”
62. Schudt, Jüdische Merckwürdigkeiten, 2:276–77.
63. OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa 1652, fol. 163v, RHR decision July 1, 1718, noted on request by Jewish community to RHR, June 10, 1718.
64. OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Vota 27(J), F5.
65. A Schuh (shoe) measured about 25–43 cm. A 250-Schuh-long building constituted a building of 65–108 meters, while a 160-Schuh-long building constituted a building of 40–69 meters.
66. OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa 1652, 1718, fol. 154r, architectural drawing by Jewish community FfM for RHR.
67. Unna, Simon, Gedenkbuch der Frankfurter Juden. nach Aufzeichnungen der Beerdigungs-bruderschaft. 1624–1680 (Frankfurt a.M.: J. Kaufmann, 1914)Google Scholar. See for example the grave of Henle bat Simon Koblenz (p. 30, no. 72), which was next to a grave that had sunk with the epitaph obscured.
68. OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa 1652, fol. 132r, Report FfM magistrate to RHR, November 8, 1717.
69. OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa 1652, fol. 156v, Petition Jewish community FfM to RHR, May 5, 1718.
70. For examples, see the Frankfurt pinkas, NLI JER 4° 662, nos. 82–83.
71. OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa 1652, fol. 156v, Petition Jewish community FfM to RHR, May 5, 1718.
72. OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa 1652, fol. 142v, Petition Jewish community FfM to RHR, April 4, 1718.
73. Schudt, Jüdische Merckwürdigkeiten, 1:362–63.
74. ISG FfM, Juden Akten 628, actum Bauamt, June 22, 1781. It is likely that this hut was used to store wood.
75. Kracauer suggests that the impetus for additional communal Garküchen was fear of fires in privately managed Garküchen located in domiciles in the Judengasse. He mentions the Garküche run by Feist Bauer. Kracauer, Geschichte der Judengasse, 403n6. On Bauer, see Ele toldot, 17.I.1789.
76. ISG FfM, Juden Akten 628, actum Bauamt, June 22, 1781.
77. Ibid., July 6, 1781.
78. Ibid., November 7 & 8, 1781.
79. Ibid.
80. See Ettlinger's discussion of Shlaffstatt and Garküchen. One Jafef Offebach, who died on April 6, 1809, served as the mesores Shlaffstatt. Like other communal employees, he lacked official membership in the community (Stättigkeit).
81. Jütte, Robert, Poverty and Deviance in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.
82. Ibid.; Maria Boes, “Unwanted Travellers: The Tightening of City Borders in Early Modern Germany,” in Borders and Travellers in Early Modern Europe, ed. Thomas Betteridge (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 87–112; Kallenberg, Vera, Jüdinnen und Juden in der Frankfurter Strafjustiz 1780–1814 die Nicht-Einheit der jüdischen Geschichte (Göttingen: Wallenstein, 2018)Google Scholar.
83. Raeff, Marc, “The Well-Ordered Police State and the Development of Modernity in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Europe: An Attempt at a Comparative Approach,” American Historical Review 80, no. 5 (1975): 1221–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Härter, Karl, “Security and ‘Gute Policey’ in Early Modern Europe: Concepts, Laws, and Instruments / Sicherheit und ‘Gute Policey’ im frühneuzeitlichen Europa: Konzepte, Gesetze und Instrumente,” Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung 35, no. 4 (134) (2010): 41–65Google Scholar.
84. Hahn Neuerlingen, Sefer yosif ʾomeẓ, no. 710.
85. By contrast, the communal cantor discussed below received 520 gulden per annum. He, however, would have been permitted to run a Garküche as a side business.
86. OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa 2140, §7, libellum gravaminum Jewish community FfM to RHR, September 20, 1787.
87. See Kasper-Marienberg, “Vor Euer Kayserlichen,” 459–64.
88. The primary legal claim for the appeal to Vienna was the leaders’ reluctance to take an oath regarding something they considered to be part of their official duties.
89. OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa 2140, §9, libellum gravaminum Jewish community FfM to RHR, Sepember 20, 1787.
90. The German reads “die Jüdischen Haußväter, welche für ihre Familien kochen ließen, und des Endes die Töpfe in die gemeinen Backöfen schickten.” The passive voice suggests that the food was being cooked by a person who was not a family member but could be a household member, echoing Hahn Neuerlingen's seventeenth-century description of maidservants cooking in private households. OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa 2140, §4, report FfM magistrate to RHR, July 19, 1789.
91. Zivier, Ezechiel, “Eine archivalische Informationsreise,” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 49, no. 2 (1905): 240–43Google Scholar. While this is the only pinkas found to date belonging to an institution, we have several pinkasim that belonged to various communal officials. These include the pinkasim of the ne'emane kahal (Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People [CAHJP] D/Fr/32); of the charity collector (CAHJP HM2/4148); and of judges on the rabbinical court. See Fram, Window on Their World.
92. We thank the museum, and particularly Sabine Koessling, for helping with access to the pinkas.
93. Museum Judengasse Frankfurt am Main (MJFM), Inv.nr.: B 1999/004, fols. 12, 13, Hauptbuch des Wohlfahrtsfonds und der Suppenküche der Jüdischen Gemeinde Frankfurt am Main: 1785–1804. The Hebrew texts use the term kur for flour and litra for meat. We have used the formula provided by R. Abraham Ḥayyim Naeh, who calculated that one kur was about 250 liters of flour. We thank Edward Fram for his assistance in this calculation. We have assumed that a litra was about one pound.
94. Ibid.
95. Ibid., fol. 11.
96. Ibid., fol. 10.
97. Ibid., fol. 8.
98. Ibid., fol. 30.
99. Ibid., fol. 21.
100. NLI JER 4° 662, no. 455.
101. Kracauer, Geschichte der Judengasse, 402.
102. Sulzbach, Abraham, “Ein alter Frankfurter Wohltätigkeitsverein,” Jahrbuch der jüdischen literarischen Gesellschaft 2 (1904): 241–66Google Scholar. The confraternity was founded in 1763.
103. This was the third fire to ravage the Judengasse during the eighteenth century. The fire of 1721 did not reshape communal spaces, and as such, we have not included it in our discussion. See Kracauer, Geschichte der Juden in Frankfurt am Main: (1150–1824), 2:143f.
104. ISG FfM, Rechneiakten vor 1816, no. 651, fol. 5v, actum Schatzungsamt June 17, 1799. See the parallel documentation also in ISG FfM, Juden wider Juden 195.
105. ISG FfM, Rechneiakten vor 1816, no. 651, fol. 6r, actum Schatzungsamt June 17, 1799.
106. Fram, Window on Their World, no. 153.
107. Ibid., no. 223; appendix 3. See also NLI JER 4° 662, no. 439.
108. Ibid., appendix 3.
109. See ibid., 541–46. See also NLI JER 4° 662, nos. 446, 447, 449.
110. ISG FfM, Rechneiakten vor 1816, no. 651, fols. 15r–16v, resolution FfM Rechneiamt, publ. August 9, 1799. This is the first instance that we have found in which the magistrates required a license for a Jewish Garküche. Indeed, both Sichel and Saul lacked licenses for their establishments, and claimed they did not know licenses were required. By contrast, we have found many requests for licenses to run Christian Garküchen in the database of the city archives in Frankfurt.
111. Oppenheim testified that he did not have a written contract with Saul. ISG FfM, Rechneiakten vor 1816, no. 651, fols. 26r–27v, interrogation protocol of Jacob Marx Oppenheim, FfM Rechneiamt, September 26, 1799.
112. NLI JER 4°1092, fol. 422r.
113. ISG FfM, Rechneiakten vor 1816, no. 651, p. 21, 22, petition Salomon Moses Sichel to FfM Rechneiamt, May 3, 1800.
114. Battonn, Frankfurt, 3:342–43.
115. Roth, Ralf, Die Herausbildung einer modernen bürgerlichen Gesellschaft: Geschichte der Stadt Frankfurt am Main; 1789–1866 (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 2013), 166, 167Google Scholar. The same was true in Hamburg. See Lindemann, Mary, Patriots and Paupers: Hamburg, 1712–1830 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990)Google Scholar. For a general overview, see Pullan, Brian, “Catholics, Protestants, and the Poor in Early Modern Europe,” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 35, no. 3 (2005): 441–56Google Scholar.
116. Heuberger, Rachel and Krohn, Helga, Hinaus aus dem Ghetto Juden in Frankfurt am Main, 1800–1950 (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1988), 35Google Scholar.
117. Heinrich Heine, Der Rabbi von Bacherach: ein Fragment, ed. Joseph A. Kruse (Frankfurt am Main: Insel, 2002). On the use of Jewish themes in Heine's work with particular discussion of the Garküchen scene see Ulrike Dedner, “Meine Nase ist nicht abtrünnig geworden. Heinrich Heines Rabbi von Bacherach als Zeugnis erschriebener Identität,” in Ironische Propheten. Sprachbewusstsein und Humanität in der Literatur von Herder bis Heine, ed. Markus Heilmann and Birgit Wägenbaur (Tübingen: Narr, 2001), 275–97.
118. Heine, Rabbi von Bacherach, 71–73.
119. Ibid., 77, 78.
120. Ibid., 82, 83.
121. Ibid., 90–93.
122. Ibid., 97.